1. Dr. Gerhard Joos dotGIS – Beratender Ingenieur für Geoinformation Gerhard.Joos@dotGIS.de http://www.dotGIS.de Application Redesign Workshop 1: Quality Management for Geodata FIG Commission 3, 5 and 7 FIG General Assembly in Munich, Germany Monday October 9, 2006 10:30-13:00 Room 21a

2. Gerhard Joos Reasons for application redesign Reasons for migration to different GIS software GIS base software is no longer supported by vendor Developments of system enhancements are getting more and more expensive due to old base technology Change of hardware and/or operating system required  GIS software does not run on new system New system architecture required (e.g. web-based) Reasons for migration to a different application schema Application schema does not support all requirements If different GIS software has to be chosen, it may require a different data model Some business processes are not supported by the old application schema

3. Gerhard Joos Actions Strength - weakness and opportunities - threats (SWOT) analysis Redesign System architecture Interfaces Application schema Functionality Migration Transfer of data Transfer of functionality User interfaces Testing Employees training Roll-out Quality-Management

4. Gerhard Joos SWOT analysis Emphasis on Implications on costumers Economical benefits Business opportunities Transition phase Involvement of user community

5. Gerhard Joos Data migration Especially migration process has to be accompanied by QM Experience shows: data quality usually improves when adapting to a new application schema Data errors show up: Not closed polygons Selfintersecting lineStrings FeaturePropertyValues that are in the wrong domain Is this our experience as well?

6. Gerhard Joos Application schema development ISO/TC 211 Model driven approach Open Geospatial Consortium GML: Definition of standardized data types in XML Schema standard: rules Unified Modelling Language eXtensible Markup Language Schema

7. Gerhard Joos Example for land management cadaster ALKIS-predecessor ALK was outdated Graphical oriented No object structure E.g. parcel consisted of an object parcel-Nr and boundary lines – the area feature was not explicitly modelled Complex analyses on parcels were not possible (although the system was all about management of parcels) Many users relied on the ALK data for their business processes Especially utility companies

8. Gerhard Joos chances structure? Implications to the costumer cadastre data What happens if the underlying cadastre data chances content? 14.95 5.75 25 utility data chances geometry? chances format?

9. Gerhard Joos Structure Change or redesign of application schema Content Updates to the database due to changes of the real world or due to error correction Geometry Change to CRS / datum, new survey with more accurate data, combination of old survey data with GPS data Format Raster (e.g. GeoTIFF) System-specific (e.g. e00, oracle-dump) Proprietary or de-facto standards (e.g. shape-file, DXF) Application-specific (e.g. EDBS, WLDGE) Standard (e.g. GML) has impact on web map services (WMS) format is “fixed“ has impact on web feature services (WFS)

10. Gerhard Joos Conclusions Interoperability on a technical level is solved (more or less) Interoperability on business logic is an issue Users have to get involved in the redesign Migration has to emphasize on data consistency functionality continuity in business processes

11. Gerhard Joos Questions for discussion Which business processes are involved? How do costumers benefit from a redesign? How can costumers get involved in the redesign process at an early stage? How do standards support a redesign? Do web-services make a difference?

12. Gerhard Joos Thank you for listening! What is your experience?